This is my feeling too. I didn't pay close attention to the case, but if the jurors sat through the whole thing and decided he wasn't guilty, who are we to think otherwise? Why do some people think they are better qualified to decide innocence or guilt with far less information than the jury had? It doesn't matter how it looks from our limited, media-fed position; the people with the facts saw it the way they did.

It isn't just that, it's also the other way around: there are quite a few things that the public at large generally knew about but that the members of the jury didn't, because the judge excluded them from evidence. Same thing happened with the OJ Simpson case, and in fact, in all likelihood, it happens with any case that carries any significant degree of public interest.

Quote

This paragraph is a bit misleading though, I think. It looked to me that nobody was trying to figure out whether GZ killed TM. That seemed the given. They were trying to decide self defense versus murder. Or did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything. I just think that that part was badly worded. No, it was never in question as to whether Zimmerman killed Martin. He did. The question was whether it was justified or not.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

It should be justified as they are armed with deadly fists and penises.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

What is your understanding of what a "Stand Your Ground" law actually is?

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

3. Zimmerman did a lot of things wrong, but being an idiot and an asshole is not, in itself, a crime. Nor should it be the basis of judging one guilty. The charges that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt were murder or manslaughter, not racism, profiling, stupidity, machismo, having some kind of inferiority complex, or just general douche-baggery.

Tactically the defense were correct in not calling Zimmerman to the stand.To see him squirming under prosecution questing would have definitely swayed the jury the other way.

I think that the jury was not prejudiced in any way but they still came up with the wrong verdict (In my opinion).

How did that happen?

In my opinion six jurors are too few to decide a case of this magnitude.The state presented NO physical evidence to absolutely (within reasonable doubt) disprove Zimmerman's case.

Maybe this case may highlight race issues, in the USA, enough for real changes to go through congress.

It was a very difficult case to prove and unlikely to find him guilty.

I think if you ignore everything that lead up to the fight, Zimmerman was acting in self defense. However, context is everything. He intentionally put himself in that situation, knowing he had a gun, despite what the police instructed him to do. And because of that, an innocent kid is dead. I think he is morally responsible for that. I am not shocked that he was not held legally responsible.

Martin should have called the police himself to report a creep in an SUV stalking him. I understand why a black male teen would not trust the police to handle it. But he might be alive had he done so.

From what I understand, Mr. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, against the advice of the police (911), because he thought Trayvon looked "suspicious". This, in itself, shows how bigoted he was. He then proceeded to shoot the kid.IMO he should have been sent to jail, as any other person would/should have.

Actually that is not exactly in evidence. Zimmerman definitely followed treyvon (completely legal) after following him aroung behind the buildings the police suggested that Zimmerman did not "need to do that" there was no order for him to cease pursuit. However Zimmerman did tell the dispatcher that he would comply. His breathing returned to normal and he continued to walk around behind the building while talking to the officer. He told the 911 operator at the time that he would meet police and that he did not know the exact address of where he was at that moment.

This case really all boils down to who started the physical altercation. Did GZ grab Treyvon or punch him? I doubt it because Zimmerman was a bouncer and likely would have injured TM however beyond the gunshot TM had only injuries to his fists. Zimmermans injuries appear to be that of someone completely taken off guard as he claims. At the very least zimmermans story jives with the evidence. Why do you think zimmerman was clearly the aggressor.

Zimmerman injuries Broken nose, lacerations to back of the head.

GZ got out of his car competely legalTM ran completely legalTM hid ? competely legalGZ or TM began a physical altercation This is the first illegal activity on either part but we don't know who it was.TM or GZ sreamed (indicating submission with TM on top my guess is that GZ screams like a bitch when pinned to the ground the person in the dominent position does not usualy scream IMO)GZ responded to what a reasonable man would consider a life threatening or great bodily harm situation.

Who began the altercation??? I can only guess but to me it looks like GZ was taken off guard by TM. Did that begin with Zimmerman shoving him or grabbing him? I don't know there is 0 evidence of this.

To me what we have is a tragedy where two people made choices that when combined resulted in a life threating situation.

TM told his girlfriend that he refused to run. (to me that indicates to me a mindset where he may be pissed and is gonna be a man standing his ground)

This case should never have gone to trial. We now know why the grand jury was not somoned it never would have made it past Grand Jury muster.

As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

Stand your ground was never a part of this case.

Not only was it not tried. It also does not apply at all. Zimmerman was not in a postion to stand his ground. He was on the ground under a superior aggressor who was beating him senseless(some would say possibly causing him great bodily harm).

This whole case hinges on who started the fight. Following someone does not count. Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him. That would be a weak self defense case. Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

My approach from the jump was to wait and gather as much info as possible before drawing any conclusions. Along the way though, there was so much talk as bits and pieces of info were released that my thoughts shifted from "I can't believe they aren't gonna charge this man" to "they may not need to charge him as this is at best a civil suit" to "he needs to be punished" and then finally to "justice was served and I can't find any fault in George Zimmerman based on the evidence we have to go on."

As a female, I have felt intimidated and threatened many, many times in my life by random men walking near me after dark. Sometimes the men even say things that make me feel more afraid. I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

Stand your ground was never a part of this case.

Not only was it not tried. It also does not apply at all. Zimmerman was not in a postion to stand his ground. He was on the ground under a superior aggressor who was beating him senseless(some would say possibly causing him great bodily harm).

This whole case hinges on who started the fight. Following someone does not count. Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him. That would be a weak self defense case. Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

While I sort of understand the reasons for the jury's verdict, given the information they had, but I have to ask you this. If I followed you just because you were the wrong color, and called the police and told them I was following a suspicious person using a perceived racist remark (assuming the two of us were different races) and I tried stopping you and you, suddenly threatened, jumped me in what you saw as self defense and I shot you, you wouldn't mind?

Something has to change in our legal system so that a suspicious person like Zimmerman, who may have called him a "fucking coon", (though Zimmerman said what he actually said was "fucking cold") but that apparently caused Trayvon to go after him, and that was that. Zimmerman did say to the dispatcher a little earlier that "fucking punks" like that "always get away".

He was also told by the 911 operator not to follow Trayvon. But he did. He wasn't breaking any law, but he was demonstrating no judgment, maturity or decency. Not something to be proud of, even if he didn't also shoot the kid.

Keep in mind that Trayvon had committed no crime, and nobody but Zimmerman was suspicious of him.

There is no way to call what happened right. Unless it's okay for me to shoot you whenever I please. Because by my standards, you sound mighty suspicious.

Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him. That would be a weak self defense case. Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

I doubt that very seriously assuming Trayvon would have gotton a fair shake from the cops that arrived, (but that's a whole other story). From Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon punched him in the nose AFTER seeing Zimmerman reach towards his pockets. Trayvon may very well have felt that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon and then reacted in self defense by striking Zimmerman to protect himself from a strange man with a weapon.

Had a gun never been drawn TM would probably be in jail because he was beating someone for following him. That would be a weak self defense case. Now all bets are off if GZ grabbed him, or hit him but facts of the case are thin there.

I doubt that very seriously assuming Trayvon would have gotton a fair shake from the cops that arrived, (but that's a whole other story). From Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon punched him in the nose AFTER seeing Zimmerman reach towards his pockets. Trayvon may very well have felt that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon and then reacted in self defense by striking Zimmerman to protect himself from a strange man with a weapon.

Which, by the way, is how cops get out of going to jail for shooting unarmed citizens. All they have to say is that they "thought" the dead person was reaching for a gun. If that is what Trayvon thought was happening, then he was acting in acceptable self defense, just as cops do regularly.

Oh, unless having double standards is important. Then Trayvon was violating those, for sure, and he certainly had to die.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Which, by the way, is how cops get out of going to jail for shooting unarmed citizens. All they have to say is that they "thought" the dead person was reaching for a gun. If that is what Trayvon thought was happening, then he was acting in acceptable self defense, just as cops do regularly.

Oh, unless having double standards is important. Then Trayvon was violating those, for sure, and he certainly had to die.

Yes, you're right, there is a double-standard, and it's a very pronounced one. If Zimmerman had been a cop, it's unlikely that charges would have even been filed. Law enforcement officers are afforded much broader discretion when it comes to killing people (and many other matters as well, for that matter).

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

I have to ask you this. If I followed you just because you were the wrong color, and called the police and told them I was following a suspicious person using a perceived racist remark (assuming the two of us were different races) and I tried stopping you and you, suddenly threatened, jumped me in what you saw as self defense and I shot you, you wouldn't mind?

According to the police report and the info that was given in court, the scenario above isn't what exactly happened. Zimmerman told police he found Trayvon suspicious because he allegedly saw him standing in front of a residence on a rainy night looking around. Zimmerman found that to be odd behavior so he called a non emergency line to report what he saw. He drove past Trayvon and parked further up the road at a community club house and according to the story. While parked there he claimed that Trayvon approached and circled his truck checking him out, then proceeded to run/skip out of sight between buildings. All this happened while Zims was on the phone with the dispatcher. At this point Zims said he drove down a street to see if he could see where Trayvon went in order to report his whereabouts to the dispatcher. He apparently saw him, parted his truck again, then proceeded to follow Trayvon with the intent of being able to intentify where he was to the officers that were on the way. He then says that he lost sight of him and that is then the dispatcher asked was he following Trayvon and said not to. Zimmerman said "okay", hung up, and proceeded to where he was to rendevous with the officers. On the way to the rendevous point, he says he unknowingly passed Trayvon who was hiding in the bushes and at that point Trayvon (who probably felt threatened), hopped out and asked Zims "what's your f'in problem?" Zimmerman says he said he didn't have a problem and proceeded to reach for his phone in his pocket so he could call the po-po. Upon seeing Zims reaching for something, Trayvon is said to have punched Zims in the nose and a fight that Trayvon quickly got the better of ensued. According to Zims, after finding himself beneath Trayvon with his head being banged against the cement, he tried to scoot onto the grass. In the procees his jacket came up revealing his gun and according to him, Trayvon noticed it and went for it but Zims got to it first and fired the fately shot that ended a young man's life prematurely.

If that is in fact what happened, I find no fault in the behavior of either person. The situation escalated into a "bomb first" scenario and if it's my life or your life, I'ma bomb first. Both parties apparently felt they were being threatened and they acted accordingly.

Yes, you're right, there is a double-standard, and it's a very pronounced one. If Zimmerman had been a cop, it's unlikely that charges would have even been filed. Law enforcement officers are afforded much broader discretion when it comes to killing people (and many other matters as well, for that matter).

Based on the evidence that came forth, I can see why the initial ruling was not to file charges on Zims. They had nothing upon which to convict him legally, so filing charges would be a waste of time and money.

(off topic a bit but..)For me, the double standard is evidenced based on race as well as social and/or economic status. If the scenario were the same with the exceptions being Zimmerman was a black guy and Treyvon was a young white boy, history shows us that the likelihood that Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged would be greatly increased. That conviction, that belief, is what leads to the outrage being exhibited in minority communities over this case. It appears to us that the justice system plays favorites and does right (to an extent) to the Zimmerman's of the world while giving a damn and failing the Trayvon Martins and Marissa Alexanders of the world consistantly. In the eyes of most folks I run into the perception that their is unending discrimination is the reality people of live with and are frustrated with having accepted.

Police officers do not have an easy job. They often have to make life and death decisions, always with too little information. That is why I am nervous about everyone and his dog carrying a gun. Average people are not trained in how to make life and death decisions with access to firearms. Just look at the "gun fail" threads to see how often people screw up with guns and shoot each other by mistake.

Even police sometimes make mistakes, though they are trained. (Remember the police in NY who fired at a suspect on a crowded street and missed him although he was a few feet away? Passersby were hit by ricocheting bullets.)

Why the hell would Zimmerman think he could police his neighborhood? He did not even need to be outside his house, following anyone. What did he really think he was going to accomplish? Trayvon was not breaking any laws--unless it really is a crime to walk around while black. Z. seemed to be stalking him for no good reason. I don't think he meant to kill that kid, but he did have a loaded gun on his person. And the kid was not armed. It seems to me that Z. was looking for a confrontation. I think he miscalculated how scared Trayvon was and how hard he would fight when threatened.

If there had been no gun involved, there might still have been a fight, but it is far less likely that one person would be dead.

You know, reading through this thread I see the same sort of "tar them all with the same brush" mentality regarding police as that objected to about black youth.

You are of course right, magic, but we seem to be having a long string of cop-related overzealousness. And while, like all other reports of bad things, many of us ignore that in total there are not many reports of police abuse, those reports that do surface often times absolutely suck.

In a recent case, police investigators knew that drugs were being shipped through a UPS center, with false addresses that an insider would steal rather than delivering. Yet they decided to raid the house of one of the false addresses. The house was that of a highly respected major in a small town, and they broke in, shot his dogs, arrested him and made a huge mess. They never apologized, they never explained why they thought they had to do that, they never got permission from the town itself to do the raid, or otherwise did anything right. And they are getting off scott free. The general feeling in America since 9/11 has been one of dwindling freedoms and the need to duck. Toss in also dwindling economic opportunity and generic abuse from the some of the richer folks on the block (note that I did not say all) and we are more likely than not to strike out at someone. And police who shoot innocents become an easy target. Which we at times generalize to mean all police rather than just those that were guilty.

Our bad. But there are others who are doing bad too. It will not be fixed by the victims and potential victims merely stating their concerns in a less generic way. Actually, it probably won't be solved. We don't have any mechanisms for doing things right in this country.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

I wonder how long it would take to repeal "stand your ground" laws if women and girls all over the country, based on their feelings, began shooting men and boys on sight.

Do you think you would be charged with a crime if one of those men had jumped on you, started banging your head onto the concrete, and you had drawn a gun and killed him?

I really doubt it, but I could be wrong.

In my concealed carry course, we were taught the law in my state:

Verbal abuse can be met with verbal retaliation. Pushing can be met with pushing back. Fisticuffs can be met with fisticuffs. Deadly force can be met with deadly force.

If one of the men had jumped on you and started to apply what I considered to be deadly force, by law, as a bystander, I could draw a gun and kill him. Would you rather me keep my distance and plead, "Please don't hurt her?"

I learned something today that I didn't know. And I'm really mad I didn't know it.

Much mockery was made of the testimony by Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while he was being stalked. She was not articulate enough. And no one understood what she was saying.

But the one thing we all heard about was that Trayvon had told her he was being followed by a CREEPY ASS CRACKER. Much was made about this! Trayvon wasn't innocent! Cracker? Cracker? He was the racist.

But really. No one was listening to Rachel. She didn't quote Trayvon as saying he was being followed by acreepy-ass cracker. She said quoted him as saying he was being followed by a creepy ass-cracker. Apparently, ass cracker, or butt cracker, is one who performs anal sex.

Everyone heard the word cracker. AH HA!!! See Trayvon must be the racist! And no one heard what she said next. She said that Trayvon knew he was being stalked, and thought that he was going to be sexually assaulted.

Everyone was having so much fun mocking her, that they were not even listening to her. [1]

This kid, in the last moments of his life, knew he was being stalked, and thought he was going to be raped.

And the prosecution didn't pick up on it. And the media didn't pick up on it. And everyone heard the word cracker, and no one heard anything else.

Now, if this point had been brought up, perhaps it might have explained the boo boo on Zimmerman's nose.

I know we do get sound bytes for ratings sake but I really hurt for that girl when the defense was cross examining her. They appeared to be going out of their way to belittle her and make her look stupid. The snide questions about whether she spoke English in Kindergarten, whether she could read cursive. Grilling her about her statements. I don't know about anybody else but I don't remember verbatim conversations I had last week, let alone last February.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Quesi, I'll have to wait till I get home to listen to the video. But I have to tell you, my immediate reaction is why the hell would Martin think Zimmerman was going to rape him? Seems like a strange suspicion to have.